A Lynch Job

Without much digging, I came up with Â a Pandora’s box of filth, subversion and deeply rooted anti-Semitism in our institutions of higher learning. Particularly at University of Sydney, where Â Associate Professor Jake Lynch swims literally Â like chairman Mao’s fish in the water and does what career Jew-hating, Â One-World-Under-Socialism & Islam Â progressives always do: spread hatred and doubt against truth tellers, deny freedom of speech to all but Socialists and their Islamic slave masters, and deny Jews their right to exist.

How many muslims where asked whether they are offended? Are Muslims now in charge of the Â university curriculum and should their claims of being ‘offended by Jews’ Â prevent more serious students from engaging with bona fide scientists in real science?

Associate Professor Jake Lynch, director of the university’s Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies, has urged his colleagues to withdraw from the research gathering, and the university administration to cancel it.

Dr Lynch has been a strong supporter of the boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign designed to isolate Israel.

“Associate Professor Jake Lynch, director of the university’s Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies”-– a fraud from beginning to end.Â With almost certaintyÂ a professional agit prop, a polit-commissar of what was once COMINTERN. All these professional so-called ‘ Peace and Conflict ‘ studies departments are not only a waste of money for pseudo-science, but for dumbing down our students, for misdirecting necessary debates and for creating problems only they can solve, like the ‘global warming’ fraud.In this case, the perp not only comes with the mental baggage of the Jew-& Israel hating morons that unite Marxists, Nazis and Muslims, but has the audacity to hide behind his pseudo-science “Peace and Conflict Studies” to attack real science (neuroscience, tissue regeneration and other cutting-edge research areas) that is actually useful and can save lives.On top of all he brazenly claims Â Â “cutting-edge research event will offend potential Muslim undergraduates”– not. This is intolerable. This must not be tolerated. This is Australia, not Nazi Germany.Associate Professor Jake Lynch is a nasty creature and operates a false flag operation.Interested readers might do their own research on Jake Lynch, you’ll be amazed Â what you will find!Told ya:Without digging, one Google click:

A massive and cynical misdirection is underway. Israel is not the victim here. Those killed were humanitarians intent on delivering aid to Gaza, not gun-toting commandoes who descended from the night sky.

This was an act of piracy, in international waters, on the definition of the International Maritime Bureau: “the act of boarding any vessel with an intent to commit theft or any other crime, and with an intent or capacity to use force in furtherance of that act”.

In the same article, Lynch also mentionsÂ Antony LoewensteinÂ favorably, and calls for Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions.

These guys sound worse than Chomsky disciples…..

Did I mention Chomsky?

Here we go, another Google click:

The Sydney Peace FoundationÂ is heartened by the overwhelming response to the announcement of Professor Noam Chomsky as the 2011 Recipient of the …

Jake Lynch is also a member of the ‘Toda International Advisory Coucil’, check out some of the names on the first page and you can smell the camel dung: The Ex-nun-com-Islamo-apologist Karen Armstrong is listed as a “Religious Historian” among many Mohammeds, Hosseins etc, etc…. check into the funding of this operation, you’ll be surprised at what you might find.

You may be aware that Associate Professor Jake Lynch of Sydney University’s Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies has protested about the upcoming “Israel Research Forum” being hosted at the university, arguing among other things that it might offend Muslim students. This despite the fact that the university is hosting a “Muslim Resarch Forum” next year.

Below you will find a collection of letters which appeared in The Australian today in response to his stance.

Please note that the Sydney University Centre For Peace and Conflict Studies, awarded a Peace Prize to Hanna Nasrawi (Fatah party)) in recent years.

Professor Jake Lynch is a supporter of the Friends of Hebron and holds regular discussions at Politics In The Pub at Glebe.

EB

The Australian
Talking Point: Boycott of Academics Would Be immoral

I am saddened, yet again, to read about University of Sydney academic Jake Lynch’s unthinking support of boycotting academic ties with Israel (“University forum with Israeli scientists ‘offends Muslims’ “, 25/10). Just what does he fear from a free exchange of ideas? To pick an example, would he block Australians from learning about Israeli work to develop a new universal flu vaccine by linking flu virus proteins to teach the immune system to make antibodies and killer cells that will attack the virus, now in the early stages of testing? Or what about the work of Gideon Grader (one of the visitors in the exchange program that Lynch attacks) on the development of processes that enable clean energy extraction from non-carbon fuels, a boon to a world where carbon-based fuels are becoming scarcer by the decade? David D. Knoll, Coogee David is a past president of the JBD.

UNIVERSITIES are supposed to be bastions of free speech but not so at the University of Sydney where, of all people, the director of the Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies, Jake Lynch wants to stop Israeli scientists from attending a forum because it might “offend Muslim students”. Perhaps Lynch needs reminding that there are more Israeli Nobel prizes for science among its 6 million Jews than in the billion-strong Islamic world. One of their few winners was for the Nobel Peace prize, Yasser Arafat. Randy Rose, Hobart, Tas

THE call by Jake Lynch from the University of Sydney’s Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies to shut down an Israel research forum is astonishingly illiberal. I always thought that the role of academics was to promote rather than silence academic freedom. Philip Mendes, Kew, Vic

WHAT have we come to when medical researchers are discouraged from speaking at Australian universities on the basis of their ethnicity for fear of causing offence? Why is it that in some minds anything linked to Israel, that Middle Eastern country of freedom, is deemed to be bad? It is very disappointing that members of our so-called enlightened academia would condone restrictions on academic freedoms because of anti-Semitism. Cory Bernardi, Senator for South Australia, Kent Town, SA

I SEE Jake Lynch is irritated by the prospect of an Israel research forum. This is despite the fact that the webpage of the Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies says: “The centre aims to facilitate dialogue between individuals, groups or communities who are concerned with conditions of positive peace, whether in interpersonal relationships, community relations, within organisations and nations, or with reference to international relations”. One of his complaints is that Arabic is generally not the language of instruction in Israeli universities. Of course, together with Hebrew, Arabic is an official language of Israel. No doubt, Lynch would therefore support the use of native languages for instruction in Australian universities, as well as elsewhere. Lawrence J. Doctors, Dover Heights, NSW

JAKE Lynch argues that the University of Sydney risks reputational damage. On the contrary, its reputation will be damaged if it responds positively to Lynch’s morally and politically repugnant demands. As an academic I find the idea of academics demanding a boycott of universities in Israel and Israeli academics unprofessional and immoral. Whatever happened to the idea that open debate, that argument and counter-argument is crucial to academic and political discourse? Israel is undeniably the only true democracy in the Middle East. It is indefensible to call for a boycott of any description against such a nation. Bill Anderson, Surrey Hills, Vic

In an article for Foreign Policy, academic Dr. Marc Lynch attempts to justify his his long-standing attempt to legitimize the Muslim Brotherhood as for force for democracy. The article begins:

BY MARC LYNCH | APRIL 10, 2013 The deterioration of Egyptian politics has spurred an intense, often vitriolic polarization between Islamists and their rivals that has increasingly spilled over into analytical disputes. Some principled liberals who once supported the Muslim Brotherhood against the Mubarak regime’s repression have recanted. Longtime critics of the Islamists view themselves as vindicated and demand that Americans, including me, apologize for getting the Brotherhood wrong. As one prominent Egyptian blogger recently put it, ‘are you ready to apologize for at least 5 years of promoting the MB as fluffy Democrats to everyone? ARE YOU?’ So, should we apologize? Did we get the Brotherhood wrong? Not really. The academic consensus about the Brotherhood got most of the big things right about that organization … at least as it existed prior to the 2011 Egyptian revolution. U.S. analysists and academics correctly identified the major strands in its ideological development and internal factional struggles, its electoral prowess, its conflicts with al Qaeda and hard-line Salafis, and the tension between its democratic ambitions and its illiberal aspirations. And liberals who defended the Brotherhood against the Mubarak regime’s torture and repression were unquestionably right to do so â€” indeed, I would regard defending the human rights and political participation of a group with which one disagrees as a litmus test for liberalism.”

Read the rest here.

Dr. Lynch has also been a proponent of the idea the Muslim Brotherhood could serve as some kind of “bulwark” against Al-Qaeda and related groups.

A post from June 2008 discussed Dr. Lynch’s position that repression was responsible for the “hardline turn” of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood . Previous posts have discussed Dr. Lynch’s sympathetic position towards the Brotherhood, his trip(s) to Egypt to meet with Brotherhood leaders, and his flawed use of political science methodology in reaching his conclusions about the Brotherhood’s commitment to democracy.